linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180820125250.85db3bcb0052e1007a86358f@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:52:50 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:32:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   fs/proc/kcore.c
>   include/linux/kcore.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore")
> 
> from the tip tree and commits:
> 
>   4eb27c275abf ("fs/proc/kcore.c: use __pa_symbol() for KCORE_TEXT list entries")
>   ea551910d3f4 ("proc/kcore: clean up ELF header generation")
>   537412a2958f ("proc/kcore: don't grab lock for kclist_add()")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Yup.

What's happening here?  A two month old patch turns up in linux-next in the
middle of the merge window, in the "perf/urgent" branch.  That's a strange
branch for a June 6 patch!

Is it intended that this material be merged into 4.19-rc1?